Translation Rubric

Last week, I posted about using a proficiency-based rubric to grade student writing. Following that, a Latin teacher contacted me, asking if I had a proficiency-based rubric to grade student translation into L1 (English). The answer is, "Yes, I do, but..."

The question which was asked is a rather, complex one because of the terms "proficiency-based" and "translation." In many ways, the two terms are polar opposite. When we Latin teachers use the term "translation," we are grading for "accuracy" - did the student translate this word correctly and its form correctly, translate the verb tense correctly, indicate singular vs. plural, translate the participle/ablative absolute correctly, translate the sequence of tenses properly in light of the sentence, etc. From there, we mark off/deduct points - this is "performance" grading. Performance grading is quantifiable and reflects student performance in terms what they did not do correctly.

As stated in my previous post, proficiency-based grading is the opposite: 

This type of grading is not based on performance, which is the traditional "marking errors and deducting points," but rather on proficiency, i.e., what is it that students can do and what skills are they exhibiting in their language learning process? Language learning proficiency-based grading is holistic in nature and implements rubrics which are aligned with the ACTFL proficiency guidelines.

This now bring me to the other issue at hand: translation of L2 into L1 is not considered an ACTFL proficiency skill, and I fully agree with this. If you look at Bloom's Taxonomy, translation is listed as a very low-level skill, because in translating something from L2 into L1, all which a person is doing is establishing meaning. While translating may involve some degree of higher level thinking, no new meaning is created other than now the artifact exists in that person's L1. In a traditional Latin class, once the text has been translated from Latin into English, further higher-level discussion takes place in English.

So returning back to my original point - I have created a rubric for grading student translation. Translation is A skill which I teach, but it is not THE skill which I teach in my Latin classes, i.e., I also am focusing on listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of the Latin language. Also, it is not based on ACTFL proficiency levels (Novice Low, Mid, etc), because these proficiency levels do not exist for translation. Rather, I have created a general "proficiency-inspired" translation rubric which can be used regardless of the level. 

Observations:

1. I love the holistic nature of the grading, because again, it shows me what students can do and not what they cannot.
2. Because I am already expecting there to be some grammar/translation errors due to their language level, that is not my true focus.

Caveats:

1. The key words are "instructional level" - I will simply say here that I believe that Latin needs to seriously realign what is considered to be "at instructional level" with what is actually realistic in terms of language acquisition. In upper level Latin courses, we are asking students to translate Superior-level Latin just after 2.5/3 years of the language.
2. This rubric could be applied for upper level classical readings or AP Latin, but I also would express caution. In my previous days of teaching AP Latin, I have found that most students will just memorize the English translation of a classical text and "spit it back" for a translation assessment. Essentially, the assessment becomes more about their memorization skills than translation abilities.

So if you are wanting to assess translation according to a rubric, consider using this but also understand that proficiency-based instruction (and not performance-based) is informing it.

Proficiency-Based Grading - Writing Rubric level 1

For the past few years, I have been serving as a coach for Acquisition Boot Camp (ABC), the online CI/ADI course presented by The Comprehensible Classroom and led by Martina Bex and Elicia Cardenas. This online course is an absolutely wonderful class for those new to CI/ADI, as well as a great refresher for those who are experienced! Even as a coach, I feel like I am learning (and relearning/deepening my understanding) about the basics of CI/ADI.

One of the week's modules of lessons addresses assessments/grading and how to implement standards-based grading using the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Although I was familiar with the ACTFL standards and what they represented in terms of the language acquisition process, I had never thought of aligning them for grading purposes. As I learned more about this, it made all the more sense to use them! 

Although the ACTFL proficiency standards are not based on "levels" (such as Spanish 1, Spanish 2, etc), they can be applied to what target proficiency markers students should be demonstrating at which level:

• Level 1 - Novice Mid
• Level 2 - Novice High
• Level 3 - Intermediate Low
• Level 4 - Intermediate Low  (yes, level 4 target is still intermediate low, since the intermediate level is so "messy")

One of the biggest shifts for me has been that this type of grading is not based on performance, which is the traditional "marking errors and deducting points," but rather on proficiency, i.e., what is it that students can do and what skills are they exhibiting in their language learning process? Language learning proficiency-based grading is holistic in nature and implements rubrics which are aligned with the ACTFL proficiency guidelines.

Already I am hearing some of you say, "But students need to know their correct endings, how to spell words correctly, say/write/translate things perfectly, etc.." Yes, I completely agree with you, BUT the accuracy component comes so much later in the language acquisition process with continued input. Essentially when we are expecting correct grammar from beginning language learners, we are wanting native-like language from novice learners right away! The accuracy component will eventually kick in - not just immediately! (see reference to my blog post on the theory of ordered development). As language teachers, we have based our idea of language learning on textbooks and our own experiences, which are centered on the notion that language learning is linear in nature, when in reality it is NOT! This is why World Language is unlike any other subject area.

So in researching the use of rubrics for proficiency-based language learning, I found so many good resources:

• Martina Bex
• Scott Benedict
• Carrie Toth/Kristy Placido - CI Diaries podcast

Recently I had my Latin 1 students do their first timed write (before, I had been doing guided writings with them). In many ways, this was not a true proficiency based writing since it was a retelling of a clip chat which had been doing the past few days, and they had a lot of support for the writing (pictures, possible questions to answer about the pictures, practice doing a few pictures the day before), but it was their first time writing for 10 minutes on their own. For this, I implemented the following rubric. This rubric is a consolidation of so many other teachers whom I greatly respect, so any praise goes to them and any blame goes to me!  NOTE - since the expectation is that students will be around the Novice Mid level, that is an 85. If they demonstrate Novice High in their writing, then that is a 100.

NOTE - this is a level 1 writing rubric. Since the target for level 2 is Novice High, the exemplars listed for Novice High here (the "above instruction level" here) would be shifted to "at instruction level" on a level 2 rubric.

Observations

1. Oh my gosh, the rubric made grading SO MUCH easier and quicker. While I was still using my shorthand for "errors" (still a difficult habit for me to break!), after reading the students' writings, I knew exactly where they fell on the proficiency scale in terms of what skills they were communicating. Because I was anticipating errors to begin with, I was only looking to see if the errors impeded comprehension for me, a "sympathetic reader accustomed to non-native language communication" (an ACTFL term) and to what degree those errors did.
2. The majority of students scored 85s and 100s, showing me that for this timed write, they were demonstrating Novice Mid and Novice High writing (again, this timed write was just spitting back to me a retelling of a clip chat, so not a true free write), i.e. exactly where they should be.
3. I did have a number of students score 70's (Novice Low) and 50's (emerging). These students have been chronically absent and have not been here for much of the semester. In other words, their grade did correctly reflect their level of proficiency.
4. Remember that this rubric is based on proficiency, hence there are no grammar mastery indicators, such as "exhibits proper use of the dative case," etc.
5. I have used the picture below in many of my blog posts, but it accurately represents how we should be viewing student communication in the target language:

So if you are have not considered doing proficiency based grading aligned with the ACTFL standards, I encourage you to look into it. It will give you a much more honest, realistic view of language learning expectations.